#31  
Old 01-03-2019, 05:04 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 12.6
Courses Played: 192
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,063
Niced 185 Times in 120 Posts
Default

You guys are over-thinking. In the OP, the "in the woods" + "close to OB", together with "goes over, quickly marked and threw" were the key things.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:18 PM
krupicka's Avatar
krupicka krupicka is online now
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Naperville, IL
Years Playing: 17.7
Courses Played: 67
Posts: 1,213
Niced 200 Times in 110 Posts
Default

The answer is clear by the rules for that question. A lot of the discussion is exploring the gray edges of the rule.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-04-2019, 09:11 AM
Discette's Avatar
Discette Discette is offline
Independent Operator*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga
Years Playing: 22.6
Courses Played: 485
Posts: 1,664
Niced 545 Times in 191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhatton1 View Post
It sometimes seems like Disc Golf rules have been written with cheating in mind rather than just to create a level playing field this questions wording requires an expectation of cheating to be read as requiring a penalty.

Sad to say, but some of the rules were written specifically because early in the sport, there was THAT GUY that would stretch every single rule in a not so sportsmanlike manner. Because of THAT GUY, there are at least four rules in the rule book specifically written to prevent HIM from cheating. To this day, these rules remain to keep all the not-so-honest folks honest. Folks that are good sports and want to follow the rules know they have to ask a card mate to check to prevent "the appearance of impropriety". Usually good sports don't mind because that is part of the rules.

I guarantee you that if these rules were not in place, THAT GUY would still continue to "push it" to this very day!

We know you are not THAT GUY. However, when you do have to play a round with a "less than honest" player, you will have an appreciation for why we have these rules.

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:18 AM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.2
Courses Played: 144
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,042
Niced 2,531 Times in 1,063 Posts
Default

The irony is that a whole lot of the rules discussions/debates that crop up on message boards like this tend to devolve into in how a given rule absolutely will be pushed or exploited by a THAT GUY, thus it needs to be re-written or stricken from the book altogether.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-04-2019, 11:51 AM
Discette's Avatar
Discette Discette is offline
Independent Operator*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga
Years Playing: 22.6
Courses Played: 485
Posts: 1,664
Niced 545 Times in 191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
The irony is that a whole lot of the rules discussions/debates that crop up on message boards like this tend to devolve into in how a given rule absolutely will be pushed or exploited by a THAT GUY, thus it needs to be re-written or stricken from the book altogether.



I get that every rule can have loopholes, but several rules written for THAT GUY closed those glaring loopholes early in the sport! I used the words THAT GUY instead of typing out his name. THAT GUY was a real life person that was super friendly and charismatic! Ask some other old timer for his name. They all know it.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-04-2019, 12:44 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.2
Courses Played: 144
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,042
Niced 2,531 Times in 1,063 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discette View Post
I get that every rule can have loopholes, but several rules written for THAT GUY closed those glaring loopholes early in the sport! I used the words THAT GUY instead of typing out his name. THAT GUY was a real life person that was super friendly and charismatic! Ask some other old timer for his name. They all know it.
I believe it.

To me, the irony is that for all the rules arguments fueled by the possibility that a fictious boogey-man "THAT GUY" could bend or exploit a rule, the discussion in this thread is fueled by someone suggesting that a rule specifically created to counter a THAT GUY shouldn't or needn't be concerned with a THAT GUY.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-06-2019, 07:39 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.7
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,599
Niced 2,460 Times in 1,164 Posts
Default

I'd probably answer the test question correctly, but with some uncertainty. I'd want to ask the test, "How close?" Being unable to do so, I'd assume it's close enough for its status to be debatable, and that that's what the question was getting at.

The actual rule doesn't mention "close", and in practice we don't pause to make a determination on every lie.

I'm not sure how to fix that, even if a fix were deemed necessary.

I rather assume that the rule isn't just to stop cheating. Cheating is covered elsewhere, and in other cases of potentially improving a lie by moving a disc, there isn't the same type of specific clause. This rule also applies---perhaps specifically applies---to cases where the status of the disc is debatable, and players can have an honest disagreement over it, recognized in the possibility of a split decision as to whether a disc is out-of-bounds, or not. If it's close enough to be uncertain, it's too close for the thrower to make the determination alone.

In practice, I'm one of those players who plays courses with lots of OB, much of which is vaguely delineated. That, along with the people I play with and the divisions I play tournaments in, leads to the practical application of the rule in this way. If it's close enough to be uncertain, the player will ask for a group decision (or concurrence). Otherwise, they won't.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-08-2019, 02:16 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 524
Niced 137 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
The rules don't grant the player in your second situation "benefit of the doubt". The group is doing so, arguably against the rules of play.

Rule 812.B.2 requires that all players "[w]atch the other members of the group throw in order to ensure rules compliance and to help locate discs". In the first example (the test question scenario), the player is throwing from a location before the group can arrive to confirm the disc's status, in violation of 806.02.H. That's on the thrower. In the second example, unless the thrower rushed into the woods and threw out before any of the rest of the group had a chance to put themselves in a position to watch him*, the group is failing to uphold their obligation to watch the thrower closely enough to ensure he plays from his proper lie.

*I find it unlikely that a player would be able to execute that quickly if we're talking about a position in which he is obscured from view of the other players even if they're nearby and trying to observe.
There is still a fundamental difference:

In the case of the lie near OB, you would be assessed a penalty, even if there was no indication or belief by the group that you did anything remotely nefarious or cheated in anyway.

In the "woods" case, there is no penalty that I can see. The worst I could possibly think of is a courtesy warning, for failing to wait for the group. The only way there would be any penalties is if the group had reason to believe you actually were cheating and changed your lie.

As far as your *, I don't see why it would be any more difficult for a player to throw from an obscured position in the woods before their lie was verified than it would be to throw from a near OB position. Both of them see pretty unlikely in practice, but if there is going to be a rule that requires group verification of a lie, it doesn't make much sense that it doesn't cover all instances.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-09-2019, 01:30 AM
cheesethin cheesethin is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Courses Played: 14
Posts: 167
Niced 79 Times in 39 Posts
Default

806.2.H makes sense as a targeted rule, to shut down a specific 'valuable'/'effective' avenue of cheating (THAT GUY). If you declare yourself safe and then pick up your 'OB by an inch' disc before anyone can dispute your call, you have instantly gained a stroke.

Improving your lie in the woods or wherever, while still cheating and benefiting you, isn't guaranteed to save you a stroke in the way the OB cheat does. Hence the value of the cheat and the value of having a specific rule to combat it.

Both are cheating, and prohibited by the rules. 806.02.H just acts as a deterrent and gives the group a means of redress(?), in one specific case.

I see it being hard and rare for 806.02.H to be misapplied nefariously, for reasons others have mentioned.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Niced: (2)

Last edited by cheesethin; 01-09-2019 at 01:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
 

  #40  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:25 AM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 12.6
Courses Played: 192
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,063
Niced 185 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhatton1 View Post
If you were close to an OB line you wouldn't even think of asking the group first. If your disc was touching an OB line you probably would if it was a borderline call you definitely would.

Close could be 10 meters away. the wording is to loose. Unless we are asking for every lie to be confirmed by the group before throwing.
I always do. Maybe not the whole group but 1 or 2 people so that I already have a consensus -- on ANYTHING close or questionable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhatton1 View Post
Yes but it's a situation where there is a lot more pressure on the player to play it correctly.

From a distance away in most instances you might not be able to see the disc but you can see where the player is standing. If they are taking a stance within a meter of OB or even close to this or moving their mini it puts the burden on the player to ask for guidance from the group. This would negate the need for this rule altogether, any perceived infringement would be straight to cheating and disqualification there could be no Grey area as their currently is. Three people would have to be absolutely sure that the player had just picked up and moved their disc more than a meter.
I've never thought it was saying the player was cheating. I can be OB under the rules, or receive a penalty stoke under the rules without cheating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhatton1 View Post
I suspect I play on a course with more OB than a lot of you from the answers above. At Quarry Park over here every hole has OB... well, it used to be everywhere, now thankfully, it's just most places, hopefully one day it will just be in some places....

If every disc near what could be considered OB needed to be approved by the group we'd never finish a round..... The only ones you'd ask for a second opinion on are questionable ones, up against a fence or on a riverbank where you'd want to be sure. Unless you had really good prior reason not to you'd just take the other players at their word.
The one thing throughout all of this I don't get is people saying how much "waiting" or "extra time" is being taken to verify the OB/IB status. Aren't the players in the group supposed to be WATCHING their card mates throws to be sure the throws are legal? The premise in the test question was that the player got to his lie so quickly that not one could. And if so, then yes, he deserves that OB stroke. But if he walks up with normal timing and flow, there should be another card mate close enough to verify BEFORE he throws.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pdga rules question LukeButch Rules Questions & Discussion 2 07-27-2016 02:34 PM
Need help with a PDGA rules chris deitzel Rules Questions & Discussion 21 04-27-2016 08:19 PM
Would you play a PDGA event where the TD does not follow PDGA rules? chris deitzel Rules Questions & Discussion 20 04-07-2016 08:56 PM
Rules exam for an A tier? mball1684 Rules Questions & Discussion 11 01-23-2016 10:12 AM
2010 PDGA Rules Proficiency Exam for NT's CaptainAnhyzer General Disc Golf Chat 9 12-30-2009 07:13 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.